Just when it appeared that all future coal-fired power plants would be permanently grounded, it now looks like that the fate of those same electric generators is up-in-the-air. As it happens, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that it would re-examine whether regulations on heat-trapping emissions are fitting.

Industrial organizations are putting a positive spin on the decision, saying that carbon dioxide limitations may be tossed. Meanwhile, environmental groups are emphasizing something entirely different: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called endangerment finding that concludes that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare will remain intact. At the same time, carbon rules tied to vehicles are not even up for consideration.

“EPA’s carbon regulations for the coal fleet will be economically damaging, while having no practical on global climate change,” says Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. She adds that the regulations have already resulted in the closing of more of than 300 coal units in 33 states.

Some history: In 2007, the Supreme Court said that the EPA had the right to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act if it determined such releases could result in a public health hazard. The agency did so in 2009, which was challenged by many of the same groups now appealing to the Supreme Court. In June 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld that “endangerment” finding.

The industrial organizations and 13 states then asked the full D.C. court of appeals to rehear the case, which declined to do so. They subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided this week that it will hear one element of the argument on whether the rules tied to stationary power sources are too restricting -- not whether the endangerment finding is valid.

EPA’s recently released rules will go ahead, for now. They require that all future coal plants be as clean as combined cycled natural gas units. Technically speaking, those plants could emit no more than 1,100 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour, a significant drop from their current levels of 1,850 pounds.

“One can only speculate whether the Supreme Court granted cert to cut off further indirect challenges to its decision that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and to allow the EPA regulatory program that grew from that decision to proceed; or whether there is an administrative problems it wishes to fix or a point about allegedly excessive regulation is wishes to make,” says Kenneth Reich, a Boston-based lawyer and adjunct faculty member of Boston University's School of Law.

Industry groups say that the Congress ought to dictate procedures and that those rules should not come from those in the unelected regulatory halls. Its petitioners to the Supreme Court include the National Mining Association, which represents Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy. Some utilities that have previously taken aim at EPA include American Electric Power, Southern Company and Xcel Energy.

Because environmental changes have been trapped inside congressional committees and are largely based on party lines, the president has sought progress through his EPA. In fact, proponents of such action contend that the legislative process is too political -- that the fossil fueled interests are big givers to the Republican Party, which has blocked any and all of those environmental reforms. Therefore, the only way to effect change is through the judicial branch and from those who do not accept any monetary graft.

“To be sure, the stakes here are high,” the D.C. Court of Appeals wrote last year when it issued its opinion that the endangerment finding would stand. “The underlying policy questions and the outcome of this case are undoubtedly matters of exceptional importance.”

With that, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on the case in January 2014 and it will reach a decision in the summer of 2014. Justices, overall, have sided with the environmentalist when it comes to the Clean Air Act. But they have also ruled, generally, in favor of business interests. As such, they may tweak the regulatory formulas by which carbon releases are measured but the jurists will leave its core fundamentals intact.